Monday, August 06, 2007

Frog Almost Boiled

Brits during WW2 were horrified at the segregation of the US armed forces and were sympathetic to the black G.I.s - as recounted in this novel.

Churchill looked at the English outrage and pronounced :

"In countries where there is only one race, broad and lofty views are taken of the colour problem."

Newly released archives show Churchill's 1951 administration worrying about the Windrush generation and social cohesion. The Guardian story is written by a David Ward to make it appear that cabinet secretary Norman Brook considered them 'riff-raff', whereas the case "for excluding riff-raff" related to the Metropolitan Police finding that 40% of those convicted for pimping in London were "coloured". But you wouldn't expect the Guardian to do a straight report, would you ?

Churchill :"Problems which will arise if many coloured people settle here. Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in UK ? Attracted by Welfare State. Public opinion in UK won't tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits."

Let's just revisit the 'nation of immigrants', shall we ?

"David Maxwell-Fyfe, the home secretary, reported that the total of "coloured people" in Britain had risen from 7,000 before the second world war to 40,000 at the time of writing, with 3,666 of those unemployed, and 1,870 on national assistance, or benefits."

Home Secretary David Maxwell-Fyfe uttered a variation on Churchill's theme which still applies today :

"The col(onial) populations are resented in Liverpool, Paddington & other areas, by those who come into contact with them. But those who don't are apt to take Liberal view."

And those who didn't were many and influential. Maxwell-Fyfe was cautious :

" ... politically it would be represented & discussed on basis of a colour limitation. That would. offend the floating vote viz., the old Liberals. We should be reversing age-long tradition that British subjects have right of entry to mother-country of Empire. We should offend Liberals, also sentimentalists."

"Public opinion in UK won't tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits". Even a great man doesn't get everything right.

The strategy for years and years was 'the immigrant population is a tiny minority of the total. Anyone feeling threatened by such a tiny minority must be an evil racist'. The water temperature rose slowly and the frog stayed put.

But that'schanging. Trevor Phillips' "since the migrant and ethnic minority populations are still below 10%, we have a way to go before Britons feel threatened by pure numbers" may prove to be the last sighting outside of the Guardian comments. We're more into comments like these :

Now you used to have to be a swivel-eyed loon to pick this stuff up. It seems to be spreading to the MSM at last. Maybe the fact that the new incomers are white has reduced the liberal guilt and fear of being called a racist.

Britain's face is changing. More than half of all babies born in London last year were the children of foreign-born mothers. Across England and Wales, the figure was approaching a quarter.The biggest winners, apart from the migrants themselves, are the farmers and hoteliers who employ them at minimum-wage rates. The losers are the British craftsmen and cleaners, farm labourers and semi-skilled workers whose wages have been forced down as they compete in the labour market.

The most remarkable impact of recent migration is shown in birth statistics, calculated by the Office for National Statistics and revealed today.

These show that out of 669,000 babies born last year in England and Wales, 147,000, or 22 per cent, were the children of foreign-born mothers. A further six per cent had British-born mothers but foreign-born fathers. Among the foreign mothers, roughly a quarter were Asian, a quarter European, a quarter from Africa or the Caribbean, and a quarter from elsewhere.

The figures also show that British-born women have, on average, 1.6 children - less than the "replacement rate" needed to keep the population stable. Foreign-born women living in Britain have, on average, 2.2 children. The highest fertility rate is among women born in Pakistan but living in Britain, who have an average of 4.7 children.

The Government Actuary predicts that by 2031, Britain's population will have risen from 60 million to 67 million, with most of the growth due to net immigration. The increase is the equivalent of six new cities the size of Birmingham.

Hmmm. 22% + 6% - nearly 1 baby in three in 2006. And from an in-depth study of the Gloucestershire and Wiltshire stores of Poundland and Lidl, I think the Poles are only just starting to sprog seriously. The frog may find it a bit late to jump out of the pot.

There are twice as many Asians in the UK as African/Caribbeans and their birth rate is higher so they should account for about half of the 147 thousand.

'Foreign born' includes people born here. So it should be children of foreign born parents or grandparents.

The other 'white European' also seems to be too high. I know there are plenty of Poles and other East Europeans in the country but they have not been here long enough to account for such a high percentage of 'foreign' born births, unless, unless, there are a LOT more of them in the country than the official figures suggest.

The official statistics certainly do not record the number of illegals immigrants who bear children. It would be interesting to find out whether the NHS has its own figures. Incidentally the London borough of Newham, an area with a majority-minority population, has the highest fertility rate in the country.

Miliband proposes a 'multiculturalism in which no single group is dominant'. This sounds terribly nice and fluffy even, but is actually clinically idiotic if taken literally.

First of all, under such conditions *every single* group will view itself as being denied self dtermination - can you imagine the tensions caused by that? Moreover, consider the proliferation of affirmative action programs and quotas that would be needed to ensure that no group possesses any hint of dominance. Quite apart from everything else, this would necescitate ultra-stringent discrimination against individual members of the majority group, so as to prevent that group from using its numerical advantage.

So, bureaucracy up and individual merit based decision making down. Good start. Of course, a society consisting of mutually antagonistic (because different, racially and culturally, and hence with regards to their beliefs) groups were all are roughly equal in power is known as a state of civil war. Slow burn, mostly petty bureaucratic civil war in this case, but civil war nonetheless.

Finally, this would be enormously unjust to Euros. Other societies allow their traditional ethnic-cultural groups to remain dominant, while we beat ours down so as to make our own nation more equal.

Of course, none of these problems would arise if this scheme was to include allowing each of said non-dominant groups to set laws for their own communities. We might then ensure, lest we suffer from conflicting legal systems, that each of these groups stay in their own alloted area, and we might even let this happen on a global scale.

Brits during WW2 were horrified at the segregation of the US armed forces and were sympathetic to the black G.I.s - as recounted in this novel.

Some facts:

Between 1942 and D-Day 1944, more than a million and a half U.S. soldiers were stationed in the United Kingdom, and while there is not a complete account of the number of crimes they committed, victims and punishment, the U.S. Army reports that during this time eighteen soldiers were executed in England for murder, rape, and rape/murder. As indicated in Table 1, the largest category of crime was murder (8), followed by rape (6), and murder/rape (4). African American soldiers were disproportionately represented in executions for each of these crimes. They represented 50% of the solders executed for murder, 83 percent for rape and 25 percent for murder/rape. Overall, African American soldiers comprised 56 percent of all of the soldiers executed at Shepton Mallet.Combined with the execution of Latinos, minority executions grow to 72 percent of the eighteen military executions in England.

looking at the map , all i can see is "importation of cheap labour" - the west country is farming and tourism, the fenlands & lincolnshire is cheap labour for farming. not sure about the north and midlands.

the point i am making is - where is the left? if this was happening under Tory rule you can be damn sure that we'd have endless media stories about "greedy capitalists" firing "English" workers and driving wages down.

but curiously its all muted. not a peep out of the trade unions or the left in general.

maybe they're all too busy boycotting israel and being "we are all hezbollah"

but seriously though - if you look at the map, and for a minute just put on the your Marxist viewing prism, all you can see is "worker exploitation" on a massive scale.

(for the record, i'm libertarian - i'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the leftist elite)

I can't work out whether Anon at 8:54pm is a right wing nut job or a left wing nut job.

On the one hand, the linked article includes sentences such as It was the VFAwhich permitted the American authorities exclusive jurisdiction overmembers of their own armed forces while in Britain, a process not unlike the importation and imposition of cultural hegemony by a colonial power., which indicates a moonbat left wing view. After all such practice is fairly common amongst wartime allies and bears some similarity to the treatment of embassy staff. So all in all a hysterical left wing source.

But then our anon is making the suggestion that 10 black men hanged for rape and murder, out of a force of 1.5m proves that racism was high in Britain. Let's leave aside this being a non-sequitur, and try to guess what the poster was trying to say. Is it false accusations of murder that exercise him or is it the belief that the English must have been running around like headless chickens in a moral panic about 10 black criminals no longer in their midst. Where have we seen such gross generalizations before? Is this a Daily Mail reader we have here?.

john trenchard,With regard to the unions, a friend of mine who was over here from the States as an organiser told me that the unions are looking to the new arrivals to bolster membership, as there is no real growth from the native population. His specialty was organising illegals.

Well the US economy is about to slide into a major recession due to the credit crunch. It seems highly likely that the UK will follow. It will likely be at least as bad as the recession after Sunny Jim Callaghan had to call in the IMF to bail out a bankrupt Britain. It could even be as bad as the 1930s.

Should this come to pass I think it will certainly be the end for Labour and left wing politics in Britain. A LESSON will finally be learned. It should have been learned last time round but our fellow citizens gave Labour a second chance. They won't make the same mistake again, even if the left could manage to re-organise themselves into a political party after the second great depression. We will get 2 or three generations of radical right wing rule. People will turn a blind eye to expulsions of immigrants when their own job is at stake - but many immigrants will leave of their own accord when the money runs out and the welfare state is cut.

Hold on to your hats, fellow right-wingers. The going is about to get very rough, but no gain without pain.

I suggest that if Labour calls a snap election then we all vote for Brown - we need to ensure that Labour carries the can for their economic mismanagement. If we can achieve that then there is a huge prize for the right-wing in the UK - the decimation of the Left.

With a dangerous and alien Muslim population growth in the context of a general cesspit and a joke of an economy then the only hope is the army and the BNP. The forces are the only organisation(s) not utterly rotted by PC liberalism and/or unrestrained economic greed

All this LibLabCon crew are a total waste of space and much of a muchness. Needs a military coup but not a right wing one, one which appeals to the rank and file of the army and to the great mass of people in the country who are totally and absolutely fed up. It can't be said the current regime has any legitimacy with only 22% actually voting for it. What kind of democracy is this?

ndk: I can't work out whether Anon at 8:54pm is a right wing nut job or a left wing nut job.

Laban originally quoted:"The col(onial) populations are resented in Liverpool, Paddington & other areas, by those who come into contact with them. But those who don't are apt to take Liberal view."

My comment just added weight to the above in that while some Brits may have been horrified at the segregation of the US armed forces and were sympathetic to the black G.I.s (didn't the BBC produce a 'powerful' drama based upon this theme in the 80's?), this being the Liberal view, the reality was that these same black G.I.s were raping and murdering those who came into contact with them during their stay in out of all proportion to their numbers, as reflected in the percentage hung for this crime.

Was this is too subtle for you?

Perhaps you would also label me a nut job for moving on roughly sixty years to the US to tell you that for the years from 2001 to 2003 that 10,000 white women were gang raped by blacks, while the number of black women gang raped by whites was so small (if any at all) that it was totally statistically insignificant.